Little Green Footballs notes a curious trend in defacing Wikipedia entries emanating from within the walls of The New York Times, starting with the addition of "jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk jerk" to the George W. Bush entry.

At little digging via the Wikipedia Scanner reveals that there are many other cases. Here's an update to the entry for Condoleezza Rice...

The pattern seems to point to most of the drive-by edits coming from one specific IP address - 199.181.174.146.

Interestingly there are several edits from that address for specific New York Times employees. By frequency the most updated entry is the one for Nick Bilton, who was hired at the Times via Jeff Koyen (see correction below). Koyen had a nasty departure from the Times New York Press in 2005 (see correction below) and edits from inside the Times building after he left suggest that Bilton may have been the author editing Wikipedia from the 199.181.174.146 address.

Only The New York Times knows for sure if that's the case. We've sent an inquiry to the Times and will report their response...

Update: More from Dan Reihl and Auspundits. Note that in the comments to Dan's post (which I had not seen before I started working on this) Kaitain came up with the same suspicion of Bilton.

Correction: Jeff Koyen sends this:

I was editor-in-chief of New York PRESS, and hired Nick Bilton as the art director in 2003. He left in 2004 to join the Times; I eventually left the Press over an unrelated matter.

I occasionally write for the Times travel section as a freelancer, a gig I secured through Sam Sifton, NYT's Culture Editor and my former editor at New York Press.

As for my Wiki entry: I don't know who created it, edits it and occasionally defaces it. I've personally made just one edit to it since its creation -- when I relaunched my writing project, 100words.com, at a new URL.

I thought I had it right from the various Wikipedia edits, but they were pretty hard to understand since they were poorly written. I'm glad to be able to clarify the history and thank Jeff for alerting me to the facts.

Update 2: The New York Times responds.

Thank you for writing. I passed your message to Craig Whitney, an assistant managing editor at The Times. He said that "The Times deplores the actions, whoever was responsible" for the edits on Wikipedia. But, finding out who is responsible, Mr. Whitney said, is unlikely.

"The New York Times maintains one external IP address for all Web communications (and one external telephone number for all telephone communications). That IP address appeared on communications to Wikipedia at the dates and times of interventions on the Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush entries, both in 2005. Our technology experts, asked if we could track down those responsible, told us that it is probably impossible and is certainly not feasible, at a large newspaper that moved into a new building this summer, one in which there has been much staff and equipment turnover since 2005, to determine from the available data which terminals were used by those who made those entries then, let alone who was using the terminals at the time."

If we get any more information we will provide it to you.

Sincerely,
Michael McElroy
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

So there you have it, the Times has effectively said "your guess is as good as ours." In the comment section at Ace of Spades, Bilton has denied responsibility.

Enlightening post. Well, as enlightening as one can be when reporting on the fact that unkempt little children, like the ones who took all of the "w" keys from the keyboards when they left the WH, are actually acting like unkempt little children. It is so pathetic when they make in their pants, and the grown-ups have to clean it up.

What's really pathetic is the fact that this behavior amounts to the height of erudition on the part of the lefts intelligentsia. Wow, Bernie Goldberg is totally right, we MUST be whimps not to be able to annihilate these drooling perverts. If this sort of thing continues, maybe an uprising by torchlight would be in order. Anyone got some spare tar ? Bag of feathers ?

er, tort, maybe. Still, disinforming will be criminalized in the Information Age.

One thing that persistently amazes me at how easily lying memes persist even in an information age which can refute them. They take on life, but not really truth, if something else sustains them, like politics in the case of Plame, Wilson, Libby.
============================

Your favorite "fair and balanced" news source does the same thing to the same stupid website. And the NY Times isn't even liberal, unfortunately. They still let assholes like Tom Friedman waste ink, and they were the ones that gave Judy Miller a platform from which to spew her bilious lies that cost a whole lotta lives. You people are simple and small-minded. Enjoy being politically irrelevant once the stupidest president in US history finishes his term with a 25% approval rating.

The NYSlimes stopped being a 'news' organization long ago. Now every dime they spend should be counted as a donation to the DNC, they are a wing of the DNC aren't they? I guess they learned this type of edit from the DNC since the DNC has also been doing some massive edits on Wikipedia themselves. All the democrats and their supporters have left is slime and slander. This makes everything on Wikipedia suspect at best, and a total failure at it's worst. Don't bet your last dime on anything gleemed from there. Kind of like watching/reading the rest of the antique MSM, nothing newsworthy, same old made up stories (lies). I now read the credits, if it says AP or Reuters I'm sure the story (everyone of them) is wrong in some way.

Scrapiron, are you retarded? The Democrats have control of both houses of Congress, and every single poll in the country has Obama, Clinton, and Edwards polling ahead of any Republican. Other than that, though, the Democrats have nothing, right? Oh, except the NY Times and every other media organization, according to your deranged hatred of the corporatist media.

Demonstrate the flawed methodology, SotG. Bring something to the table other than ideological prejudice. Show how every news organization and polling company oversamples Democrats. Does it ever occur to you that it would take an opposite sort of oversampling that so bothers you to level the polls for Republicans? Of course not. You're a True Believer. Americans hate the war and hate Republicans. Now why do you hate America?

By the way, why would you want to taste a stranger's tears? You're creepy.

I always find it hilarious that the Left supports "collectivist" movements, but one of the largest collectivist movement, that of open source information like Wikipedia, is just constantly vandalized by the Left.

And I have no problem with skewed poll results... it will likely lull Dems into a (extremely) false sense of security, much like those infamous exit polls which were so accurate.

Cling to your belief, based on media reports, of a commanding Democratic lead in all things. Look to your polls for guidance. In the end, it will not matter at all, you see, we have control of all the Diebold systems.

You know, Gene, you are right. I do not read Wikipedia, and I try my damnest to keep from linking to it wherever and whenever possible.

Why? Because I think it is liberally biased? Well, oddly enough, this little stunt chronicled here would tend to support that belief. However, that is not the primary reason, by far. Instead, I simply hate the concept - the very idea of making a universally-editable "encyclopedia" is just something that should send shivers up and down the spine of any intelligent person, and, again, these events only serve to illustrate that.

But moving on... according to your logic, simply because we do not read it, we also should not correct it? Well, thankfully, there are those people who think about others besides themselves, and are firmly of the belief that no one should be subjected to erroneous information, regardless of their political or social leanings. I know this concept is rather foreign for you, considering your response, but it is one that has helped America on more times than not. I would suggest that you think about it, but I firmly doubt your current mindset would allow such a ... revolutionary concept.

As for those constantly crowing about how bad the President's approval ratings are, and how the Democrats own Congress, and this, that, and the other... Just remember that all of the polls in the US also indicate that the Congressional approval rating is lower than the President's. Funny how that never comes up.

Isn't it interesting that when liberals (or their institutions) are caught red-handed the tinhat trolls come out of the woodwork stomping, screaming, and attacking at full throttle. I've heard this behavior is promoted in chapter 13, 15, an 19 in the "Chomsky Reader".

And Karl Rove's the reason for America being split???? lololol. You nutjobs should save your postings on this site, the DU, Kos, etc. and show them to your grandchildren in 30 years. I dare you!

The story about the "W" keys was discredited long ago. White House staffers have admitted at the time that they knew it was a bogus story, but they didn't care to set the media straight.

As for the editing of Wikipedia, it seems that there are plenty of juveniles on both sides. Not just the Pro/Anti Bush edit wars, but any issue which has strong supporters on both sides. That's why from time to time Wikipedia finds it necessary to lock down certain articles to restrict updates.

I simply hate the concept - the very idea of making a universally-editable "encyclopedia" is just something that should send shivers up and down the spine of any intelligent person, and, again, these events only serve to illustrate that.

With regard to current politics and other controversial issues, I'd agree. However...

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

Lord have mercy grab onto your socks and jocks wiznuts. Don't choke on your bone - just go back and read your over the top, hypocritical posts on this subject cause FAUX (emphasis on little n)news has just been nailed for - gasp - CHANGING Wikpedia about amongst others that blackhearted Keith O. Those of you who are wiznuts (eg the ever reliable "pudge") were just hoisted on your own petards.

Funnier than the clowns at Barnum and Bailey - you ought to ask for pay.

Now here's the catch - you have to go to the dreaded Kos to read all the gory details and IP addresses etc. Come on now you can do it - just type it in the address bar. Or don't you have the balls?

"Someone at Fox News has been spending a good amount of time on Wikipedia recently.

Funny, there are those of us who dislike Wikipedia and those who edit it to their own causes, and the information that Fox News did it themselves does not really change that.

As has been said, there are children on both sides of this problem, as with any other situation. However, both sides doing it does not make any one side right, and both the NYT and Fox should own up to it.

And, yeah, I saw that article, Brian, but you missed the key word:

The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

Unfortunately, that only addresses a single aspect of the Wikipedia, and cannot be used to extrapolate or assume the rest of the online system is just as accurate. In fact, I would almost be willing to wager that its science sections are among its most accurate, but that is just speculation on my part.

And yet, Limoge, many of Wikipedia's seemingly safe-from-controversy science sections become the battleground of ideological vandalism too. Various chemical phobia groups have made a hash of many areas and there are even wacky edit wars in the physics' sections.

Uhm, no. The article was about the New York Times involvement in BDS. If you're only refutation is a claim that "hey, others are doing it too!", then you are admitting your acceptance of the validity of the article.

If you think by posting a final statement, after realizing there are NO arguments of refutation, that you have somehow won an argument, then by all means, claim victory.

OOOPS!

Now hack away at your keyboard in pitiful and expected rebuttal. Unless you can come up with some information that negates The New York Times shenanigans, you lose. Ah, the beauty of simplicity.

You liberals are so impressive with your intelligence and compassion. No wonder the liberal majority congress has been SOOOO successful "speaking for the american people"....yeah, the ones that hold you in such contempt only (is it 14% this week or 16?) approve of your actions.

Definitely not disputing the failure of Wikipedia, SPQR, just saying that the science section is probably the most accurate portion of it... of course, when compared to the negligible accuracy of the rest of it, that is not hard, now, is it? ;)

So what if the Dem. Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush? Read the polls as to who voters would like to elect in that regard. It's obvious that people hate that the Dems haven't ended the war yet, and are going along with Bush's shredding of the Constitution. And yet, they'd still trust them over the Republicans.

You. Are. Irrelevant. Issues like this NY Times-Wikipedia business will be all you have to crow about for a long time, chuckleheads. '08!!!

btw, tinfoil pirate, according to your logic the phonelines to congress would be lit up with folks screaming for a retreat from Iraq spurring your liberal congresstoads into action pulling the war funding.

Yes, Jim, Wikipedia is a joke. Collectivist theory shot to hell. Regardless of whether or not Diebold or people at Fox edit entries. By the way, Diebold is not a conservative entity. Your association of it to the right only shows your own whacky paranoia.

I consider the theory that the NY Times is liberal pretty wacky. Especially considering just how much cheerleading they and the rest of the so-called-liberal US media did for the Iraq invasion.

As for Diebold, its run by conservatives, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a conservative company. But it *is* something many conservatives don't want to admit is a problem. The US has a history of voter fraud going back to the beginning of the country - so liberals are wacky for demanding Diebold prove it's secure, and have a paper trail just to be safe?

But as for the real issue of this article - I'm just pointing it's not only conservatives' favorite target who edit to suit. It's some of conservatives' sacred cows as well.

jim, Democrats have no interest in preventing voter fraud. This is evident not merely from their long history of voting fraud, but from their opposition to rules requiring voters to present ID. Not to mention hiring voter registration organizations like ACORN that have a history of fraud.

Your belief that the New York Times ( whose editors and publisher admit to the paper being liberal in viewpoint ) is not liberal only shows just how far from center [b]you[/b] are, it tells us nothing about the NYT.